Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[believers]

Well, maybe the fact that archaeological discoveries within the past 100 years prove that was the teaching of the early Church.

So you’re basing your facts on archaeological discoveries? Of course you’ll find the RCC. It’s a religion with plenty of religious things. You can’t dig up evidence of “faith in Jesus only” type believers. You won’t find archaeological evidence of things in their hearts. How do you dig up love, peace, joy, happiness? If my church got buried over with dirt, you probably won’t find any evidence that it was a church either.

You’ll hae to be a little more precise on this. Would you care to explain this?

I was referring to unbaptized infants going to limbo. As of this year, they no longer go to limbo.

 

[believers]

You are saying that you do not have an answer. There is documentation from a church council in the year 250 a.d. arguing that baptism, like circumcision, may be administered BEFORE the 8th day.

So, how is it that nobody thought up “believers-only” baptism before the late 16th/early 17th Century? Surely you can provide the history without referring to The Trail of Blood.

'nother subject. Tangential. Limbo of the infants was a philosophical speculation, not official teaching of the Church. And the speculation arises from the scriptural warrant that baptism is essential to salvation. OFF TOPIC.

Why would the RCC record herectics and how many there were? The “heretics” back then lived just as we “faith in Jesus only” live now… by faith and not by sight. You cannot dig up “faith in Jesus only” believers and find “evidence” of what they taught. You’d have to resurrect them and ask them who they had faith in.

 

[Benadam]

I don’t know if this was mentioned already but, reading this thread has reminded me that the believer’s baptism is different because it is not an act that God participates in. To Catholics Baptism requires power. John said he had power to baptise then goes on to describe the Baptism that would come from Christ in terms that describe something powerfull.

the believer’s baptism is an act that God doesn’t directly participate in, and denies it’s power to do what the Apostles taught that it does.

The pattern of Christ’s perfect life is expressed by our own lives through Baptism because our souls distorted by sin take on the pattern established by Christ’s life. Why if we believe that sin stamps it’s pattern onto the soul, we wouldn’t believe that the pattern of God’s life on earth cannot do the same?

Through Baptism we are emmersed into the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. In order for Baptism to be able to do that, be the conduit of God’s life, it requires God’s participation and power…

 

[Bishopite]

How exactly do you know this? Is it because your religion records such things? Unless you were there, you don’t know for sure. The Bible says let God be true, and every man a liar.

By using your logic, NO one would know that the Bible IS true because none of us were there either!! And the only persons who would exactly know anything that happened in history were the eye wittnesses who were there to see the actual event; this type of thinking is irrational. The idea that the Catholic church changed history or kept some secret records or eliminated them IS itself irrational (if not impossible) and what I call the “Boogy man syndrome” that the big bad Catholic “Boogy man” somehow changed its “religious records” so that the true interpretation of it couldn’t be revealed. If this were even remotely true, the Catholic church would have broke into pieces centuries ago. And if anything you should be very thankful to the Catholic church for not only faithfully but infallibly choosing which books were to be within the canon, but preserved and protected them throughout history so that you would have such a Bible with 27 New Testament books.
And if you object to “religion” then perhaps you object to the Bible…see James 1:27 it speaks about true religion.

By the way, it wasn’t until this year that babies and infants go to Heaven. Why did it take so long for the RCC church to figure this one out?

 

[mercygate]

Why would the RCC record herectics and how many there were? The “heretics” back then lived just as we “faith in Jesus only” live now… by faith and not by sight. You cannot dig up “faith in Jesus only” believers and find “evidence” of what they taught. You’d have to resurrect them and ask them who they had faith in.

Actually, the history of Catholic dogma is nothing BUT a history of heresy. The faith received from the Apostles was challenged as early as the New Testament. The Letters of John and James are witness to certain forms of gnosticism and antinomianism.

How is it that believer’s baptism did not appear before the 17th century and yet you consider it biblical. Come to think of it – and we can’t go down this path because it is off topic here – why would you even accept the idea of a biblical teaching, since the canon of Scripture, since the NT canon is a Catholic codification? Did the Catholic Church delete the references to believer’s baptism in the New Testament?

A dispassionate and honest reading MUST recognize that the New Testament does not exclude infant baptism, and in fact, highly suggests it. The New Testament nowhere prescribes believer’s-only baptism. What you have is the continuing witness of the Church (Catholic and Protestant) to the actual efficacy of the act of baptism and to the practice of baptizing infants.

 

[NotWorthy]

So you’re basing your facts on archaeological discoveries? Of course you’ll find the RCC. It’s a religion with plenty of religious things. You can’t dig up evidence of “faith in Jesus only” type believers. You won’t find archaeological evidence of things in their hearts. How do you dig up love, peace, joy, happiness? If my church got buried over with dirt, you probably won’t find any evidence that it was a church either.

Is that what you got out my posts? And I expect you to interpret Scripture on your own?

What I said what was, archaeological evidence supports what the Church has taught for 2000 years. Period.

You will find writings on “faith in Jesus only”, oh, but they don’t exist prior to 16th century.

I was referring to unbaptized infants going to limbo. As of this year, they no longer go to limbo.

And I thought you could demonstrate what the Church taught prior to this year, vs. what the church teaches now.

 

[Zooey]

The RCC’s definition of baptism is completely wrong. Water baptism does not free you from sin.

You must turn to Jesus in faith and repent to baptized with the Holy Spirit. There’s no other way.

Christians are commanded by our Lord to present our children for baptism. “Let the little children come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of Heaven”.
Jesus Christ’s words on this hand; “believers” words on the other…Lemme see, lemme see… What shall I do? What shall I do??
Sorry, believers, you lose. I will follow after the:thumbsup: Lord Jesus Christ, the only Saviour & Master, not your Baptist tradition!!

How exactly do you know this? Is it because your religion records such things? Unless you were there, you don’t know for sure. The Bible says let God be true, and every man a liar.

Yes, it does, doesn’t it?? One more reason to believe what Jesus said, when He said, “let the little ones come unto Me”, and to reject the lies that people have made up about Him!!!

By the way, it wasn’t until this year that babies and infants go to Heaven.

Dinnae be ye daft, yean!! That is not & never has been Catholic doctrine!!
Do you know where it came from?? John Calvin!! He preached that “the floor of hell is covered with the tiny bodies of infants who died without being baptized!” (Small wonder he was tossed out of the Catholic Church, & had to start one of his own, teaching such heresies!!

Why did it take so long for the RCC church to figure this one out?

It didn’t, and ye’ve been sadly misinformed and lied to, yean, and ye needs must find another teacher, for the one as ye have, :nope:doesnae teach the gospel of Jesus Christ!!!

 

[believers]

By using your logic, NO one would know that the Bible IS true because none of us were there either!! And the only persons who would exactly know anything that happened in history were the eye wittnesses who were there to see the actual event; this type of thinking is irrational.

By using my logic you’ll only believe the Word of God.

Rom 3:4
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

The idea that the Catholic church changed history or kept some secret records or eliminated them IS itself irrational (if not impossible) and what I call the “Boogy man syndrome” that the big bad Catholic “Boogy man” somehow changed its “religious records” so that the true interpretation of it couldn’t be revealed. If this were even remotely true, the Catholic church would have broke into pieces centuries ago.

irrational? You mean completely possible. It changed it’s teaching about limbo. “It’s not dogma” you say, yea but your religion taught that it was true regardless. I suppose when we all die off, your religion can say that it was never taught either.

And if anything you should be very thankful to the Catholic church for not only faithfully but infallibly choosing which books were to be within the canon, but preserved and protected them throughout history so that you would have such a Bible with 27 New Testament books.

I personally don’t believe that’s how it happened. I believe the RCC got a hold of all the letters which were already compiled and circulated by the early church and then slapped a table of contents on it. Thus claiming that it choose the books and therefore is infallible because “we choose the New Testament books”.

And if you object to “religion” then perhaps you object to the Bible…see James 1:27 it speaks about true religion.

James 1:27 says…

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Honestly, does that sound like the RCC?

It is obvious that you know a lot of what Catholicism DOES NOT teach but NOT what it actually teaches. Limbo has never ever been a dogma of the Catholic faith. Do you know what is a Catholic dogma?? Limbo has never been a teaching that Catholic have to accept as dei fide doctrine of the Catholic church but has always been a part of speculative theology.

It doesn’t matter whether or not it was written down somewhere, the RCC TAUGHT this to it’s members as truth. What’s interesting though is this…

Most Catholics believe in limbo and it’s not dogma.
Most Catholics don’t believe in the real presence and it is dogma.

 

[Zooey]

I personally don’t believe that’s how it happened. I believe the RCC got a hold of all the letters which were already compiled and circulated by the early church and then slapped a table of contents on it. Thus claiming that it choose the books and therefore is infallible because “we choose the New Testament books”.

You were there, were you?? You saw all this happen?? Because if you expect anyone to believe such daft nonsense, you’d better have eyewitnesses!!
Why, you’re being so silly here, and you don’t even realize it!! The Catholic Church and the early church are one and the same!! There were no Christians who weren’t Catholics, not until the split with the Eastern Orthodox in 1054 AD!!
There would be no Bible at all, if the Catholic Church had not put it together & preserved it for us all!!

It doesn’t matter whether or not it was written down somewhere, the RCC TAUGHT this to it’s members as truth.

:nope: :nope: Not true. Just plain not true. Someone has told you this, and you need to look at your favorite quote there about "every man a liar, because whoever told you this was either a very ignorant person, or a liar himslef.

What’s interesting though is this…

Most Catholics believe in limbo and it’s not dogma.
Most Catholics don’t believe in the real presence and it is dogma.

[SIGN]Piffle!! Pfui!! [/SIGN]Billions of Catholics in this world, and you’ve polled them all?? You’ve asked every one of them, & gotten these results?? :nope: Not likely!! This is another fairy story that some man has taught you.
I’ve been on these boards for over 2 years, & I’ve only come across two people in that time, who even entertained the idea of a limbo, and** not one** who has not believed in the Real Presence!! :tsktsk: Shame on you, for reading some foolish book full of lies, and then attacking good Christian people on the basis of it!!!

 

[believers]

You were there, were you?? You saw all this happen?? Because if you expect anyone to believe such daft nonsense, you’d better have eyewitnesses!!
Why, you’re being so silly here, and you don’t even realize it!! The Catholic Church and the early church are one and the same!! There were no Christians who weren’t Catholics, not until the split with the Eastern Orthodox in 1054 AD!!

I wasn’t there and that’s why I have to rely on God’s Word for truth and nothing else.

There would be no Bible at all, if the Catholic Church had not put it together & preserved it for us all!!

I don’t buy that for a second. Slapping a table of contents on letters that were already doctrine would hardly constitute… “putting it together”.

:nope: :nope: Not true. Just plain not true. Someone has told you this, and you need to look at your favorite quote there about "every man a liar, because whoever told you this was either a very ignorant person, or a liar himslef.

[SIGN]Piffle!! Pfui!! [/SIGN]Billions of Catholics in this world, and you’ve polled them all?? You’ve asked every one of them, & gotten these results?? :nope: Not likely!! This is another fairy story that some man has taught you.
I’ve been on these boards for over 2 years, & I’ve only come across two people in that time, who even entertained the idea of a limbo, and** not one** who has not believed in the Real Presence!! :tsktsk: Shame on you, for reading some foolish book full of lies, and then attacking good Christian people on the basis of it!!!

CAF doesn’t reflect the majority of Catholics. I’m referring to cradle Catholics. I was Catholic for 36 years from birth and can tell you from personal experience that not many believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And yes, most cradle Catholics believe in limbo.

This is off topic now so I’ll end this discussion about the real presence and limbo.

 

[mercygate]

I wasn’t there and that’s why I have to rely on God’s Word for truth and nothing else.

I don’t buy that for a second. Slapping a table of contents on letters that were already doctrine would hardly constitute… “putting it together”.

CAF doesn’t reflect the majority of Catholics. I’m referring to cradle Catholics. I was Catholic for 36 years from birth and can tell you from personal experience that not many believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And yes, most cradle Catholics believe in limbo.

This is off topic now so I’ll end this discussion about the real presence and limbo.

You were a cradle Catholic? :bigyikes:
Whatever the shortcomings of your Catholic education might have been, if you really believe in the Word of God and the truth of the Gospel, you owe it to yourself, and to all the people you mislead, to learn what the Church ACTUALLY teaches and to learn some of the history that has led to the codification of doctrine. Your appallingly uninformed statement about the ratification of the New Testament canon would make a Protestant blush (as our resident Methodist, Zooey, has demonstrated).

Believers: you argue from abysmal IGNORANCE. If you spent half the effort studying the faith and Church as you do in disparaging them, you would spend that time far better.

Step up to the plate. Be a man.

 

[Zooey]

You were a cradle Catholic? :bigyikes:
Whatever the shortcomings of your Catholic education might have been, if you really believe in the Word of God and the truth of the Gospel, you owe it to yourself, and to all the people you mislead, to learn what the Church ACTUALLY teaches and to learn some of the history that has led to the codification of doctrine. Your appallingly uninformed statement about the ratification of the New Testament canon would make a Protestant blush (as our resident Methodist, Zooey, has demonstrated).

Believers: you argue from abysmal IGNORANCE. If you spent half the effort studying the faith and Church as you do in disparaging them, you would spend that time far better.

Step up to the plate. Be a man.

Its very, very sad…:crying: Its the old “Trail of Blood” fairy tale revisited…

(My mother would have laid an egg,if she had ever heard this nonsense!! She learned her church history at Roberts Wesleyan College, from a wonderful Free Methodist teacher, who told the clas often, that every Christian, regardless of labels, should give thanks to God every day, for the wonderful monks, working far into the night, in the monasteries of Europe, to preserve the Holy Scriptures, so that we could have them to read & study…I believe that she did so, too, right up to her death more than 60 years after that class!!)

 

[Bishopite]

**believers;**2278303]By using my logic you’ll only believe the Word of God.

Again, what you are saying is your version of what the Bible says is the sole and true interpretation. If this is true, then show me from history that this also true?

irrational? You mean completely possible. It changed it’s teaching about limbo. “It’s not dogma” you say, yea but your religion taught that it was true regardless. I suppose when we all die off, your religion can say that it was never taught either.

No, Catholicism has NOT changed because Limbo was never prolmagated to a dogamatic level; that every Catholic had to believe. Limbo was and still IS part of speculative theology. And you seem to be void of salvific Christian history post Apostolic period to the reformation, then in order to explain the huge gap in time of Christianity, you create a big bad boogy man (the Catholic church) in order to show your lack of scholarship and intellectual honesty about who was the “church” which had its inception from the Apostles and has lasted ever since. Anyone, and I mean anyone can take a 21st century view of the Bible and make what they want of it.
Infant baptism is not only implicity found in Scripture, but is evident by the early Christians who practiced it, as did the reformers and as DO many Protestants i.e., Reformed Christians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Anglicans. Are they wrong?

I personally don’t believe that’s how it happened. I believe the RCC got a hold of all the letters which were already compiled and circulated by the early church and then slapped a table of contents on it. Thus claiming that it choose the books and therefore is infallible because “we choose the New Testament books”.

And what kind of respected scholarship can you cite that gives evidence of your “theory?”

James 1:27 says…

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Honestly, does that sound like the RCC?

It is the Catholic church for history shows THE church which has its inception post Apostolic period to this day, a church which HAS and still does help the poor, widows, orphans i.e., Mother Theresa et al who have through history helped to poor. So when you use the religion is bad idea, you need to read the Bible for James spoke of true religion which is doing what Jesus said…to help the poor and afflicted. This is not only rational but “actual.”

It doesn’t matter whether or not it was written down somewhere, the RCC TAUGHT this to it’s members as truth. What’s interesting though is this…

Most Catholics believe in limbo and it’s not dogma.
Most Catholics don’t believe in the real presence and it is dogma.

 

[Bishopite]

Most Catholics believe in limbo and it’s not dogma.
Most Catholics don’t believe in the real presence and it is dogma.

You have just proven you really do NOT know Catholic teaching. Catholics CAN believe in limbo because it has not ever been formally defined. A Catholic is free to either believe it or not and as I said before it is a theological speculation formulated in the early church, brought back in the nineteen fifties, and was never accepted into Catholicism.
That most Catholics don’t believe in the real presence is false, most do, however some don’t but that’s irellevant. Most Protestants don’t have a clue what are sola scriptura nor sola fide nor a knowledge of the reformation.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Most Catholics don’t believe in the real presence and it is dogma.

Prove IT!!! I’ll save you from staining yourself, you can’t.

Your statement is boarding on bearing false witness against Christ’s Church.

That’ll be hard to explain to God.

 

[NotWorthy]

Prove IT!!! I’ll save you from staining yourself, you can’t.

Your statement is boarding on bearing false witness against Christ’s Church.

That’ll be hard to explain to God.

Sean, I hate to burst your bubble, but sadly a significant amount of “loyal” Catholics don’t believe fully in the Real Presence. I don’t know if it’s a majority as our good friend believers says, but one Catholic is one too many.

I would imagine most Catholics have an incomplete belief in the Real Presence, but because of the poor excuse of what we call Catechesis from the late 60’s - the early 90’s, I doubt if they fully understand what the Real Presence really means.

I teach an adult class at our Church and I can tell you the light is beginning to turn on at our Church. It’s beautiful, but it is only the beginning of what it will be, praise God!!!

 

[believers]

Prove IT!!! I’ll save you from staining yourself, you can’t.

Your statement is boarding on bearing false witness against Christ’s Church.

That’ll be hard to explain to God.

This would be better in another thread. You guys boast of a church with 1.2 billion members. So, how many churches does the RCC have actually have?

 

[Auriel]

Its very, very sad…:crying: Its the old “Trail of Blood” fairy tale revisited…

(My mother would have laid an egg,if she had ever heard this nonsense!! She learned her church history at Roberts Wesleyan College, from a wonderful Free Methodist teacher, who told the clas often, that every Christian, regardless of labels, should give thanks to God every day, for the wonderful monks, working far into the night, in the monasteries of Europe, to preserve the Holy Scriptures, so that we could have them to read & study…I believe that she did so, too, right up to her death more than 60 years after that class!!)

Oh wow! How funny. I caught myself defending Catholics to my “King James Bible only” friends who also feel the RCC is the Great Whore of Babylon the other day. I said almost the exact same thing, about how they owe the monks a debt of gratitude. I also asked where they felt the Christians who lived for the 1600 years prior to the King James version went after they died. LOL

This is an interesting and confusing thread. I do not attend Church period. But I have thought about it since taking an interest after my horrible experience as a child. Everyone is telling me I need to be baptized, that my Catholic christening (was never raised catholic however) does not count. Interesting viewpoints here.

 

[jmcrae]

Everyone is telling me I need to be baptized, that my Catholic christening (was never raised catholic however) does not count. Interesting viewpoints here.

If you were to take up your Catholic faith, you would not be rebaptized - the original one certainly “counts,” as far as we’re concerned.

You would be asked to do a modified version of the RCIA process, though. It’s actually very similar to the one done by baptized Protestants, and you would go for your First Confession, and then receive the Sacraments of Confirmation and First Holy Communion with them.

 

[JamesN]

After reading the squillionth post on this thread without seeing it mentioned, my eyes were starting to go funny. So, apologies if it’s already been pointed out, but for a totally rock solid explanation of what baptism achieves, and why it most definitely should be administered to infants, set aside an hour and go here:

biblechristiansociety.com/account/download?return=%2Fdownload%2Fmp3%2Finfant_baptism_and_original_sin.mp3

John Martignoni’s seminars on Catholic apologetics are excellent - very clear, logical and thorough, as well as entertaining.